2026 INSC 192 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1127 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021)

VANDANA JAIN & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Digitally signed by dated 30.07.2021 passed in Misc. Bench No. 16314 of 2021 whereby the writ Signature Not Verified DEEPAK SINGH D 17 a : t 2 e 9 : : 2 2 0 6 2 I 6 S . T

02.25 Reason:

1 High Court

petition of the appellants seeking quashing of FIR 2 No.0112 of 2021, dated 14.03.2021, lodged at Police Station (for short, P.S.) Hazratganj, District Lucknow, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, IPC, has been dismissed.

FACTS

3. Vandana Jain (appellant no. 1), Divya Bhatia, Siddharth Jain (appellant no.2) and Kanishk Jain (appellant no.3), described as first party, entered into a joint venture agreement, JVA dated 16.08.2010 with Motor General Sales Ltd. (Respondent No.2), described as second party. As per the terms and conditions of the JVA, the first party gave development rights to the second party for developing land i.e., Plot No. 61 (Old No. 276A), admeasuring 1500 Square Yards, bearing Municipal No. 3A/207 & 208, Azad Nagar, Kanpur. Under the agreement, the second party was required to construct residential units/apartments over the land at its own cost. The capital contribution of the first party was the land which was

2 First Information Report

valued at Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lacs Only. The project was to come up as a single unit in which both first and second party had 50% share.

4. Under the JVA, the second party undertook to complete the project within two years, upon fulfillment of certain conditions such as (i) sanction of plan by Kanpur Development Authority5; and (ii) handing over of vacant possession of the site to the second party.

5. Clause 5 of the JVA, which is of some relevance, is being reproduced below:

“SECURITY FOR DUE COMPLIANCE OF AGREEMENT For due performance of this Joint Venture Agreement, the Second Party will advance Rs. 10,000,000 (Rupees One Crore only) as security money to the First Party on receiving the physical possession of the vacant property of which second party will be giving Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs only) lacs in advance and there after the balance amount to be given to the first party within 3 months. However, if the second party is not in position to give the balance of the funds from his own sources within 3 months, then the first party will be entitled to retain the booking amounts to the extent of Rs.

50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs only).

This amount of advance will be adjusted from the share of the first party from sale proceeds of the said flats in the complex of the share of the first party.”

6. Clause 7 of the JVA provided for arbitration in the following terms:

“ARBITRATION

5 K.D.A.

All disputes or differences relating to breach of contract or damage or otherwise in connection with the terms of this contract during or after completion or interpretation of the terms etc. among the parties or their prospective purchasers the same shall be referred for the arbitration under Indian Arbitration Act in force. Neither party will have any right to approach Civil Court pertaining to arising out of any matter directly or indirectly of this agreement of Joint Venture without resorting to this arbitration clause. The award of arbitrator shall be final, conclusive and binding upon the parties.”

7. For certain reasons, not necessary to be disclosed in these proceedings, the JVA could not materialize, resulting in dispute between the parties. In consequence, on 14.03.2021, the second respondent lodged the impugned FIR implicating the appellants along with Divya Bhati as accused.

The First Information Report

8. In the FIR it was, inter-alia, alleged: (a) that despite receiving Rs.